Five questions for new BBWAA exec Susan Slusser

In case you missed it over the weekend, our own Susan Slusser, the Chronicle’s Oakland A’s beat writer, was named vice president of the Baseball Writers Association of America, putting her in line to become the first woman president of the organization that selects the league MVP’s and Cy Young winners, among other responsibilities. I asked Susan to answer five questions about BBWAA issues, women beat writers and the A’s stadium situation. — Vlae Kershner.

Susan Slusser usually votes for an MVP candidate whose team makes the playoffs. (Brant Ward/The Chronicle)

Q: The first women who were MLB beat writers had problems with players not wanting them in the clubhouses. Do you think your election signifies that women are now fully accepted as beat writers?

A: Those first women were in the 1970s and I think things have changed completely since then. I think almost every professional athlete has had women covering them somewhere before they even get to the pro level — in high school, college, the minor leagues. I’ve never had any trouble with any players or coaches for gender reasons — the players I’ve had trouble with have been the same ones the male writers have trouble with. I did have a pitching coach ask me my first day on the job if I knew anything about baseball, and I assured him that a major metropolitan newspaper seldom hires baseball writers who don’t actually follow baseball, and he turned out to be one of the best people I’ve ever dealt with. I hazard a guess that Dick Bosman hadn’t had a woman cover him in high school or the minors.

Q: There’s a big argument over whether the MVP award should go to the player who has the best year or the one who gives his team the biggest boost toward the playoffs. Is BBWAA ever going to clarify that?

A: No, and I kind of like the ballot the way it is, leaving it up to the individual writers to determine how to quantify a player’s importance to his team. I strongly feel it should be the player who gives his team the biggest boost to the postseason, and I rarely vote for an MVP candidate whose team does not go to the postseason, unless it’s a really weak crop of candidates from the playoff teams. But the other interpretation — best single season — is a valid one, too. Going through the winners over the years, the voting is usually very sound.

Q: What about pitchers? Since they have the Cy Young award, shouldn’t the MVP be reserved for everyday players?

A: I don’t like restricting things. I would rarely vote for a pitcher for precisely the reason you state — and also because starters pitch once every five days — but there are seasons in which pitchers ARE their teams’ MVPs. Dennis Eckersley is a prime example. You could argue there were more valuable players for the A’s that year, but for my money, it was Eck. It’s hardly ever going to happen, but it’s always fun to talk about.

Q: Internet baseball writers and bloggers don’t like that BBWAA membership is required to vote on the major awards and for media access to clubhouses, but the organization mostly only allows employees of traditional media to become members. Is broadening the membership something you’re going to look at?

A: Actually, most clubs will credential Internet outlets and bloggers on an occasional to even regular basis. A BBWAA credential is not the only credential, it is really meant to ensure ease of access on the road so writers don’t have to apply for and pick up credentials at every city. The BBWAA also has expanded membership to ESPN.com, Yahoo Sports, CBS Sportsline and FoxSports.com, among others, The membership requirements are reasonable: a full-time commitment to covering baseball and a certain minimum number of full-time and paid employees.

Q: I can never remember a more depressing time to be an A’s fan, with the Rangers stronger at just about every position and no apparent progress on the stadium situation. Is this the winter they finally get approval to go ahead with San Jose?

A: The A’s seem to think an answer is coming soon, but I don’t get that impression at all in repeated talks with MLB folks. It’s pretty clear they’re just stalling at this point. Why? They don’t want to tick off one of the Bay Area clubs? Well, someone is going to be ticked either way, and what’s happening right now isn’t fair to the A’s. With no answer, they don’t know what to do next. Their spending is on hold, some personnel decisions will be delayed. It seems like MLB has made them wait more than long enough. Dragging it out isn’t going to make one team less mad.

If MLB is waiting for assurances that San Jose will work for certain — that the funding is there, the vote will go through, the venue is adequate —well, I’m not sure how they’re going to get those assurances. A vote can’t happen, for instance, unless there’s already an OK for a stadium. It’s becoming a snake eating itself: They can’t give the A’s an answer because they can’t get answers to questions that can’t be answered unless an OK is given. Sure, that makes sense.